One Canon owner sums up their wide angle plight

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Mar 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote:
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=31127576
    >>
    >> Now Nikon, how about a decent 300mm f4 VR or / and 70-200mm f4 AF-S VR
    >> for $1100?

    >
    > But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the new
    > 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE


    Cool, I had not heard of that one:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
    Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
    Price: $2,499.99
    Usually ships within 1 to 2 months.

    > is functionality that Nikon doesn't provide
    > (that is a "yet", of course, but it looks like Canon scooped Nikon something
    > fierce on this one and given the economy, Nikon may not be able to respond
    > for an age), and a shift 17mm lens is very interesting for urban
    > architecture work: I've been shooting Beacon Hill in Boston recently, and
    > 24mm, even with a lot of shift, simply isn't wide enough.
    >
    > Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), but
    > in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
    > foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with its
    > superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a sturdy tripod) produces
    > superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma
    > 12-24 is excellent out to the corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and f/16
    > _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at
    > infinity focus; Sigh.
    >



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    > "RichA" <> wrote:
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=31127576
    >>
    >> Now Nikon, how about a decent 300mm f4 VR or / and 70-200mm f4 AF-S VR
    >> for $1100?


    > But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the new
    > 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE is functionality that Nikon doesn't provide
    > (that is a "yet", of course, but it looks like Canon scooped Nikon something
    > fierce on this one and given the economy, Nikon may not be able to respond
    > for an age), and a shift 17mm lens is very interesting for urban
    > architecture work: I've been shooting Beacon Hill in Boston recently, and
    > 24mm, even with a lot of shift, simply isn't wide enough.


    > Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), but
    > in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
    > foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with its
    > superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a sturdy tripod) produces
    > superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma
    > 12-24 is excellent out to the corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and f/16
    > _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at
    > infinity focus; Sigh.


    Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
    edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
    any aperture to focus distant edges?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 10, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Edward Hunt Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >>> Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open),
    >>> but
    >>> in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
    >>> foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with
    >>> its
    >>> superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a sturdy tripod)
    >>> produces
    >>> superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma
    >>> 12-24 is excellent out to the corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and
    >>> f/16
    >>> _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at
    >>> infinity focus; Sigh.

    >> Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
    >> edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
    >> any aperture to focus distant edges?

    >
    > In my testing, I wasn't able to get sharp corners at infinity whatever I did
    > (at 12mm or 17mm or longer). It looked to be more a matter of the lens not
    > resolving (smearing the image) than a focus problem. The DoF formulas tell
    > you that you should see a lot of DoF at 15mm (the f/16 hyperfocal distance
    > is a tad under 1 meter), but with such an extreme retrofocus zoom, life
    > seems a bit more complex than the DoF formulas predict. (It's only recently
    > that I did the tests to figure out how to get sharp corners at infinity, and
    > I haven't done much outside with the lens since then (and I haven't
    > determined how far I can defocus from infinity at 15mm and f/11 and f/16 and
    > still get sharp images across the frame at infinity). There is the point, of
    > course, that if the plane of focus is actually a plane, then the "distance"
    > from the lens to the stuff at the lower corners with an extreme wide angle
    > lens is actually very very short (a point which was implicit in your
    > question).)
    >
    > For interior work, even at 12mm at f/16, getting both the far wall of a
    > large room and the carpet close at hand in focus requires care. (For a CoC
    > of 0.018 mm, the hyperfocal distance should be 1.7 feet, so just leaving
    > focus set to 1 meter should cover all interior sins, but it doesn't.)
    >
    > Lots of people seem happy with the 12-24 and don't seem to (or say that
    > they) have the difficulties I do. Even with the difficulties, though, it's
    > great for interiors and is still the cheapest 15mm lens around for
    > landscapey things.
    >
    > (I just shot the interiors of a couple of 1843 Beacon Hill (Boston, the one
    > in the US<g>) row houses, and used 12mm for just about everything. I haven't
    > had time to process the images, and I'm a bit afraid that all that 12mm
    > stuff is going to get real old real quick when I show them to people.)
    >


    Are you using a Canon with JPEG? Canon are known to smear fine detail
    with their 'in camera' processing, have you tried RAW?

    Eddie Hunt
     
    Edward Hunt, Mar 10, 2009
    #4
  5. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy <> wrote:


    >>> Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), but in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide
    >>> things, since more
    >>> foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with its superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a
    >>> sturdy tripod) produces superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma 12-24 is excellent out to the
    >>> corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and f/16 _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at infinity
    >>> focus; Sigh.


    >> Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
    >> edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
    >> any aperture to focus distant edges?


    > In my testing, I wasn't able to get sharp corners at infinity whatever I did (at 12mm or 17mm or longer). It looked to be more a
    > matter of the lens not resolving (smearing the image) than a focus problem. The DoF formulas tell you that you should see a lot of
    > DoF at 15mm (the f/16 hyperfocal distance is a tad under 1 meter), but with such an extreme retrofocus zoom, life seems a bit more
    > complex than the DoF formulas predict. (It's only recently that I did the tests to figure out how to get sharp corners at
    > infinity, and I haven't done much outside with the lens since then (and I haven't determined how far I can defocus from infinity
    > at 15mm and f/11 and f/16 and still get sharp images across the frame at infinity). There is the point, of course, that if the
    > plane of focus is actually a plane, then the "distance" from the lens to the stuff at the lower corners with an extreme wide angle
    > lens is actually very very short (a point which was implicit in your question).)
    >
    > For interior work, even at 12mm at f/16, getting both the far wall of a large room and the carpet close at hand in focus requires
    > care. (For a CoC of 0.018 mm, the hyperfocal distance should be 1.7 feet, so just leaving focus set to 1 meter should cover all
    > interior sins, but it doesn't.)
    >
    > Lots of people seem happy with the 12-24 and don't seem to (or say that they) have the difficulties I do. Even with the
    > difficulties, though, it's great for interiors and is still the cheapest 15mm lens around for landscapey things.
    >
    > (I just shot the interiors of a couple of 1843 Beacon Hill (Boston, the one in the US<g>) row houses, and used 12mm for just about
    > everything. I haven't had time to process the images, and I'm a bit afraid that all that 12mm stuff is going to get real old real
    > quick when I show them to people.)
    >
    > --
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    This little lens has been surprisingly good: the tiny 12mm f5.6
    Voightlander (made for Bessa rangefinder or Nikon reflex
    bodies). Its performance peaks around f8, but it is similar at
    all other stops - and its sharpness into the corners is remarkable
    (although overall it is not the equal of the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor).
    There is no reflex viewing with it, but the optical finder supplied
    with it is accurate for framing (but that does have rather extreme
    barrel distortion, although the lens has essentially no distortion).
    There is also a useful side-view leveling bubble. The main failing
    of this lens is illumination roll-off toward the corners, but that
    often doesn't show in images, and can be at least partially
    removed if it does. For a photo of it, and one made with it, go
    here: http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-misc-photo.htm.
    --David Ruether
    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Mar 10, 2009
    #5
  6. RichA

    Pboud Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> "Edward Hunt" <> wrote:
    >>> Are you using a Canon with JPEG? Canon are known to smear fine
    >>> detail with their 'in camera' processing, have you tried RAW?

    >> If you read more carefully, you'd realize that I'm very happy with the
    >> sharpness I'm getting everywhere except the corners (and even there,
    >> there enough are cases where I'm happy with the sharpness that the
    >> lens will remain part of my kit for a long long time) with the 5DII +
    >> Sigma 12-24. (And yes, I've "tried" raw; I've been using raw since the
    >> 300D was first released.)


    Truly sofisticated people call it "tartar", not "raw"..

    Please try and keep up

    :)

    P.
    (leaving that typo in is truly painful, btw)
    >>
     
    Pboud, Mar 10, 2009
    #6
  7. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > Paul Furman <> wrote in
    > news:q0mtl.18073$:
    >
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "RichA" <> wrote:
    >>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=3112757
    >>>> 6
    >>>>
    >>>> Now Nikon, how about a decent 300mm f4 VR or / and 70-200mm f4 AF-S
    >>>> VR for $1100?
    >>> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the
    >>> new 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE

    >> Cool, I had not heard of that one:
    >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
    >> Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
    >> Price: $2,499.99
    >> Usually ships within 1 to 2 months.
    >>

    >
    > That's actually a lot cheaper than I figured it would be. Hope it works
    > well. The slow f-ratio should help control the edge.


    BTW, I saw this on nikonrumors.com and didn't mention because I figured
    it was a fake... and it is:
    http://nikonrumors.com/2009/02/18/so-was-it-fake.aspx
    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 10, 2009
    #7
  8. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Paul Furman" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the new
    >>> 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE

    >> Cool, I had not heard of that one:
    >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
    >> Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
    >> Price: $2,499.99

    >
    > Ouch. That's pricey. The new 24TSE is also pricey at $2,199.99. Sigh.


    There's one case where the Nikon equivalent is less expensive.
    PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED $2,000 (and should come down a bit).

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 10, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:32:53 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

    >> Truly sofisticated people call it "tartar", not "raw"..
    >>
    >> Please try and keep up
    >>
    >> :)
    >>
    >> P.
    >> (leaving that typo in is truly painful, btw)

    >
    > Which one is painful?


    Only the one that was intentional, obviously. The other typo, as
    a quick check with google shows, is not all that rare.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 10, 2009
    #9
  10. RichA

    Pboud Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote:
    >> Only the one that was intentional, obviously. The other typo, as
    >> a quick check with google shows, is not all that rare.

    >
    > OK, I admit it: I'm being slow. What typos???
    >

    sophisticated vs sofisticated was the intentional one; 'course, I'm
    having trouble seeing the other one as well..

    :)
    P.
     
    Pboud, Mar 10, 2009
    #10
  11. RichA

    Me Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Paul Furman" <> wrote:
    >>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with
    >>>> the new 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE
    >>> Cool, I had not heard of that one:
    >>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
    >>> Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
    >>> Price: $2,499.99

    >>
    >> Ouch. That's pricey. The new 24TSE is also pricey at $2,199.99. Sigh.

    >
    > There's one case where the Nikon equivalent is less expensive.
    > PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED $2,000 (and should come down a bit).
    >

    In a thread above is a link to comment from Andy Westlake from DPReview
    about lack of innovation in lenses.
    IMO there's ample opportunity for lens makers to churn out an economy
    tilt-shift lens for Dx format cameras, using a simple 35mm manual focus
    design (ie with an existing image circle > dx), which doesn't need to be
    fast, nor does it need to be made with the precision of a scientific
    instrument - looking as if it was precision ground from solid metal.
    $2000 is a very large sum of money for a lens for occasional use.
     
    Me, Mar 10, 2009
    #11
  12. RichA

    Pinaki Guest

    On Mar 10, 2:17 pm, Pboud <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > > "ASAAR" <> wrote:
    > >> Only the one that was intentional, obviously. The other typo, as
    > >> a quick check with google shows, is not all that rare.

    >
    > > OK, I admit it: I'm being slow. What typos???

    >
    > sophisticated vs sofisticated was the intentional one; 'course, I'm
    > having trouble seeing the other one as well..
    >
    > :)
    > P.


    Well, raw meat is spelt "tartare"

    Pinaki.
     
    Pinaki, Mar 10, 2009
    #12
  13. RichA

    Pboud Guest

    Pinaki wrote:
    > On Mar 10, 2:17 pm, Pboud <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "ASAAR" <> wrote:
    >>>> Only the one that was intentional, obviously. The other typo, as
    >>>> a quick check with google shows, is not all that rare.
    >>> OK, I admit it: I'm being slow. What typos???

    >> sophisticated vs sofisticated was the intentional one; 'course, I'm
    >> having trouble seeing the other one as well..
    >>
    >> :)
    >> P.

    >
    > Well, raw meat is spelt "tartare"
    >
    > Pinaki.

    DOH!!

    And I even looked it up too..

    :p

    P.
     
    Pboud, Mar 10, 2009
    #13
  14. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:47:45 GMT, Pboud wrote:

    >> Well, raw meat is spelt "tartare"
    >>
    >> Pinaki.

    > DOH!!
    >
    > And I even looked it up too..


    I thought that it was spelled "tartare", but looked it up just to
    check, and how odd, it wasn't listed in my 2,500 page Random House
    Dictionary. There was a entry for "tartar steak" though, which
    ended with "steak tartare" and "tartare steak" as alternatives.
    Google found more "tartare"s than "tartar"s, and some hits used both
    spellings. The Compact OED only knows about "tartare". We'll
    eventually have a definitive answer from the full OED about proper
    usage(s), and the good news is that work started on the third
    edition several years ago. The bad news is that the next edition's
    expected completion date is 2037. FWIW, my newsreader's spell
    checker accepts "tartar" but rejects "tartare" :)
     
    ASAAR, Mar 10, 2009
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >
    >Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), but
    >in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
    >foreground comes into view the wider you go.



    That's a pretty lame attempt at "damning with faint praise".

    So instead, let's be honest for a change, and admit that the Nikon 14-24
    produces outstanding results at all focal lengths, all apertures and all
    focusing distances. Period.
     
    Bruce, Mar 10, 2009
    #15
  16. RichA

    Paul Arthur Guest

    On 2009-03-10, David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    > "Pinaki" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mar 10, 2:17 pm, Pboud <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > OK, I admit it: I'm being slow. What typos???
    >>>
    >>> sophisticated vs sofisticated was the intentional one; 'course,
    >>> I'm having trouble seeing the other one as well..

    >>
    >> Well, raw meat is spelt "tartare"

    >
    > No, it's spelled "sushi"...


    No, despite the common misconception that sushi is raw fish, it refers
    to any dish made with vinegared rice. There's no requirement that
    it include raw (or indeed any) meat. The word you're looking for is
    'sashimi'.

    Even then, neither tartare nor sashimi is a generic word for raw meat.
    Tartare is a finely chopped preparation of raw meat or fish, while
    sashimi is a thinly sliced preparation of raw fish.

    --
    Girls. :(
    --rogue_stupidity on RPGnet
     
    Paul Arthur, Mar 10, 2009
    #16
  17. RichA

    Me Guest

    Paul Arthur wrote:
    > On 2009-03-10, David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Pinaki" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mar 10, 2:17 pm, Pboud <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> OK, I admit it: I'm being slow. What typos???
    >>>> sophisticated vs sofisticated was the intentional one; 'course,
    >>>> I'm having trouble seeing the other one as well..
    >>> Well, raw meat is spelt "tartare"

    >> No, it's spelled "sushi"...

    >
    > No, despite the common misconception that sushi is raw fish, it refers
    > to any dish made with vinegared rice. There's no requirement that
    > it include raw (or indeed any) meat. The word you're looking for is
    > 'sashimi'.
    >
    > Even then, neither tartare nor sashimi is a generic word for raw meat.
    > Tartare is a finely chopped preparation of raw meat or fish, while
    > sashimi is a thinly sliced preparation of raw fish.
    >

    Carpaccio - well almost generic.
    Chicken or pork carpaccio should probably be avoided unless celebrating
    last supper.
     
    Me, Mar 11, 2009
    #17
  18. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Me wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "Paul Furman" <> wrote:
    >>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>>> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with
    >>>>> the new 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE
    >>>> Cool, I had not heard of that one:
    >>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
    >>>> Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
    >>>> Price: $2,499.99
    >>>
    >>> Ouch. That's pricey. The new 24TSE is also pricey at $2,199.99. Sigh.

    >>
    >> There's one case where the Nikon equivalent is less expensive.
    >> PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED $2,000 (and should come down a bit).
    >>

    > In a thread above is a link to comment from Andy Westlake from DPReview
    > about lack of innovation in lenses.
    > IMO there's ample opportunity for lens makers to churn out an economy
    > tilt-shift lens for Dx format cameras, using a simple 35mm manual focus
    > design (ie with an existing image circle > dx), which doesn't need to be
    > fast, nor does it need to be made with the precision of a scientific
    > instrument - looking as if it was precision ground from solid metal.
    > $2000 is a very large sum of money for a lens for occasional use.


    I've played around with that idea and made a couple home-made lenses
    that way, a 28mm f/3.5 pre-Ai and a 135mm f/2 Ai which I imagined I
    could reassemble but was not able... it was a fairly cheap old junker
    but still kind of dumb move, but I had fun. The 135 works well, the 28
    has a pretty limited range but it's cool that it works out as a normal
    lens on APS.

    28/3.5:
    http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/11-20-07-bellows-28-3.5/pg2pc11
    135/2:
    http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritty/11-14-07-ship-tel

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 11, 2009
    #18
  19. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Me <> wrote:
    >IMO there's ample opportunity for lens makers to churn out an economy
    >tilt-shift lens for Dx format cameras, using a simple 35mm manual focus
    >design (ie with an existing image circle > dx), which doesn't need to be
    >fast, nor does it need to be made with the precision of a scientific
    >instrument - looking as if it was precision ground from solid metal.
    >$2000 is a very large sum of money for a lens for occasional use.


    And if you want such a lens you can have one for around $200:
    www.lensbaby.com

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 12, 2009
    #19
  20. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Me <> wrote:
    >> IMO there's ample opportunity for lens makers to churn out an economy
    >> tilt-shift lens for Dx format cameras, using a simple 35mm manual
    >> focus design (ie with an existing image circle > dx), which doesn't
    >> need to be fast, nor does it need to be made with the precision of a
    >> scientific instrument - looking as if it was precision ground from
    >> solid metal. $2000 is a very large sum of money for a lens for
    >> occasional use.

    >
    > And if you want such a lens you can have one for around $200:
    > www.lensbaby.com


    Or for higher quality, and the ability to stay where you put it without
    holding it, the ARSAT for around 600.
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 12, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Avery

    if you could only have one wide angle

    Avery, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    254
    Avery
    Mar 7, 2005
  2. Buzz

    The Plight of Naree

    Buzz, Jul 20, 2004, in forum: UK Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    262
  3. Dr Hfuhruhurr
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    388
    Steve Cutchen
    Oct 1, 2006
  4. The Other Si

    Question from a new 10D owner - Wide angle lens

    The Other Si, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    202
    The Other Si
    Sep 14, 2003
  5. Dan Sullivan
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    357
    Dan Sullivan
    Jan 4, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page